|
Hey can you guys recommend me an amp that will do well with ~250-300ohm cans? My current amp can get them loud, sure, and I'm not sure if it's just the nature of dynamic speakers or they're not being given enough current, but on faster/busier passages there's like.. bits of pause between sound where it seems like it can't keep up. Like ~microstuttering~ due to clipping. on that note I'm considering orthos in my future so this amp would have to power those, too. What will work here and not be  ?e: Schitt Lyr or Valhalla maybe? Tactical Lesbian fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Dec 31, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Ethan Winer has a massive hardon for room treatments (which he also happens to sell through his company Realtraps), but other than that, his head is on straight when it comes to audio. That's proof his head is screwed on straight 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Ethan Winer has a massive hardon for room treatments (which he also happens to sell through his company Realtraps), but other than that, his head is on straight when it comes to audio. Isn't it obvious that CBR 128 kilobit is used because it's about the minimum quality most people will accept out of MP3s intended for full range music (as opposed to something all acapella or an audiobook)? Like yeah, if they tested it with V0 MP3 even fewer people would prefer hi-res to that mp3, probably, but that's not as damning as "we used the worst common MP3 bitrate and still 45% of people were ok with it".
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Isn't it obvious that CBR 128 kilobit is used because it's about the minimum quality most people will accept out of MP3s intended for full range music (as opposed to something all acapella or an audiobook)? Pretty much, and 128kbps used to be the standard bitrate for MP3s back in the bad old days of Napster, Xing Audio Catalyst and Audiograbber. Which is the whole reason why MP3 still has a bad rap these days, because crap 128kbps was claimed to be "CD quality", when it so obviously wasn't anywhere near that. 128kbps with a modern version of LAME is much better, and VBR is a complete game changer. Transparency for most people on most music happens around -V5, which is around 130kbps average, but allows for higher bitrate when needed. So 128kbps is kinda OK I guess, and they did include the highest possible quality MP3 (320kbps) as well, for comparison. I just find it very odd that comparatively fewer people were able to distinguish hi-res audio from low-bitrate MP3, than were able to distinguish high-bitrate MP3 from low-bitrate MP3. And since they repeatedly mention the (controversial) work on the so-called "hypersonic effect" by Oohashi et al., even going so far as to use the exact same Pioneer super-tweeter, it seems pretty obvious that the paper was meant to champion hi-res audio as something beneficial. And not, you know, completely pointless and a waste of space. Every major breakthrough in audio technology (78s to microgroove LPs, LPs to CDs, cassette tape to literally everything else) has been completely obvious to anyone who has listened to both formats, but it just ain't happening with hi-res audio. We've had SACD since 1999 and DVD-audio since 2000, but both were miserable failures, and while hi-res audio downloads exist (HDTracks, Pono etc.), I think it's fair to call them a statistical anomaly at best. And yet the audiophile press keeps harping on about how much of a giant leap in sound quality hi-res audio supposedly is, when the supposed benefits just aren't there at all. It's an amazing example of a shared delusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:"we used the worst common MP3 bitrate and still 45% of people were ok with it".
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Every major breakthrough in audio technology (78s to microgroove LPs, LPs to CDs, cassette tape to literally everything else) has been completely obvious to anyone who has listened to both formats, but it just ain't happening with hi-res audio. We've had SACD since 1999 and DVD-audio since 2000, but both were miserable failures, and while hi-res audio downloads exist (HDTracks, Pono etc.), I think it's fair to call them a statistical anomaly at best. The other thing with SACD and DVD-Audio is that they're really hard for the average joe to get a player that plays them in full quality. Yeah some SACDs also have a side encoded in regular CD format, and many DVD-Audio discs have a fallback encode in regular DVD audio format so you can play them in anything, but their benefits absolutely don't exist in those lower encodings. So if you want to actually listen to anything done new, you still gotta spend a lot of money. And you can't, say, play back SACD on a computer (because they were worried about piracy) and it's really annoying to get a setup that will handle DVD-Audio on a PC. Even if they were amazing, the price and hassle is prohibitive for people. It'd be like if CD players stayed as expensive as at launch until like, 1998. Plus DVD-Audio's whole "story" isn't helped by the fact that a regular DVD with audio stored normally is already at supremely high quality - the standard DVD player specifications since like 1999 allow for up to 7.1 channels at really high bitrate and 7.1 surround with 48k sampling rate, or up to 5.1 with 96k sampling rate in a different codec. You're basically completely set with standard DVD player quality audio even if high sampling rates and higher sampling depths (24 bit per sample is supported) are "neccesary" to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Ethan Winer has a massive hardon for room treatments (which he also happens to sell through his company Realtraps), but other than that, his head is on straight when it comes to audio. Lmao the sample size is only 28. This study is completely bogus. No mention of any of their statistical analysis, either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
I just remembered that I got a measurement mic along with my dbx Driverack PX DSP box-o'-magic, so I've just ordered a USB mic preamp and a stand+cable, so I can try out REW and get some measurements. It'll be fun to see how my EQ that I've dialed in by ear actually measures up. E: I know I have an ugly suckout at ~180Hz at my chair, I don't think there's much I can do about that, I'm pretty limited when it comes to sub placement options. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
I'm about to get some VERY modest ~@!~audiophile~!@~ gear. Reading reviews online has been helpful, but it's like listening to a bunch of cranky old wine tasters. One guy says headphone amp A is bright. Another says it's neutral. Another says it's musical. So...which is it?!?!!?! Yeah, yeah, I gotta go listen to this stuff myself. Luckily I live in a city with several high end dealers. And don't get me started with cable talk. And no, Mr. Reviewer, I'm not going to spend $9,000 for a Bricasti M1 DAC, are you crazy?!? Not gonna miss this research exercise at all, no sir. Just wanna listen to some music. /rant
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Croc Monster posted:I gotta go listen to this stuff myself. This is the key. It's either worth it to YOU or it isn't. A high end dealer won't mind you having some extended listening session as long as you're not bothering anyone else 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Yeah, the places in town are ok with this as long as they detect that you're sincere about buying something in the end. A couple are also okay with in-home auditions, but I'm not getting speakers so I can do it all in store. None are going to like the fact that I won't be buying cables 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Croc Monster posted:(...) but it's like listening to a bunch of cranky old wine tasters... If audio equipment is anything like wine then you're better off getting whatever you like or the second cheapest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
That's pretty much how I see it going down. The gear that makes me smile (within my budget) is what I go home with. And for once, instead of going in like a know-it-all, I'm gonna let the salesperson do some recommending. It'll be a nice change, and I can always guide them if I feel they're going astray with my wants and needs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
I do a lot of fiddling, building my own tube headphone amplifier and so forth, and I'm always planning on what sort of ridiculous thing I'll buy once I have more money and a proper room to put it in and so forth. But the article linked a few pages back from the founder of Stereophile made me reflect a bit about actually reproducing what sounds real and I realized I've only ever experienced it in two distinct cases, with totally different systems. One is with fully horn loaded systems, like the vintage Klipsch stuff, and at the ridiculous top end, the Edgarhorn Titans. Especially for rock and roll, they sound incredible just because they sound like Pro/PA speakers to a large degree and have effortless midbass power (but not necessarily super bass extension). The other was a fullrange single driver horn loaded speaker (A fostex Sigma 208 in a double back horn), in this case the Cain & Cain BEN. I remember one of the grumpy old guys on the audioasylum forums talking about how you can always tell when you walk past a bar if there's a real band inside or just a stereo, and obviously it's not the 'soundstage' or frequency response or anything. But those two setups have it for me, regardless of the reason. I don't even remember the electronics hooked up to them, and I can't imagine it matters. Rescue Toaster fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Due to psychoacoustic and also partly how many years we've grown up with certain inaccuracies/harmonics etc it's often the case that what sounds most 'real' is acutely far from a perfect representation of the original material. See tape saturation in mastering, even order harmonics particularly in bass enclosures, etc. A huge part of HiFi marketing and tuning is really about their selection of compromises and such rather than really pursuing accuracy, and I think this is why so many of them are against quantifiable testing. That and making fat stacks of cash off gullible idiots and kit addicts, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
If you want to spend a lot of money and get super accurate, just buy studio monitors http://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-audio/dynaudio-acoustics-bm15a-active-studio-monitor#productDetail
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
You can now give a tech startup $100 for a Bass Boost dongle for your phone that you have to recharge: http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/3/10690110/boomcloud-360-boomstick-audio-dongle-price-specs-ces-2016
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Sounds like something right out of Kickstarter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
But but but... It uses algorithms 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Anyone who runs a company called BoomStick 360 in the year 2016 can eat a dick.quote:"THE PROBLEM WE’RE TRYING TO SOLVE IS THAT AUDIO SUCKS." gently caress you. Audio sucks? Sure, but guess what... 99% of people can't tell because the brain is so advanced it can deal with the 'suck' and deal with it. Your piece of poo poo garbage that connects to the 3.5mm jack of all things, that runs a 'one size fits all' algorithm that could've been implemented on the phone itself (and lets face it, is most likely a volume boost and a bit of a mid scoop) can eat a dick too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
If this convinces teenagers to use headphones instead of walking around with their smartphones blaring modern music then I support it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Waldo P Barnstormer posted:If this convinces teenagers to use headphones instead of walking around with their smartphones blaring modern music then I support it. It won't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
LifeSizePotato posted:You can now give a tech startup $100 for a Bass Boost dongle for your phone that you have to recharge: quote:The only real solution — buying better headphones — costs money quote:BoomStick, a simple $99 device Now I realize that the article is little more than a thinly disguised ad but this sort of cognitive dissonance must be someone just loving with us  I don't think I've ever bought anything through Audiogon, but I keep their emails coming for stuff like this: https://app.audiogon.com/listings/cd-sacd-players-bang-olufsen-beosound-9000-2016-01-02-digital-48009-birmingham-mi Ah yes, let me pay 3500 USD for a used CD changer in 2016. One that was little more than an overpriced Sharper Image novelty in the first place (and is flimsy as hell...seriously, if you ever encounter B&O in the wild a lot of it is very poorly built). Oh, but it has a Yuropeean name, so it must be really good! No, this doesn't sound anything like that $200 shelf system, why would you ask that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:seriously, if you ever encounter B&O in the wild a lot of it is very poorly built Being that I used to work and B&O, I am obliged to take offense to this. Their products may be ridiculously overpriced and behind the times on features, but they've always used high quality materials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:I don't think I've ever bought anything through Audiogon, but I keep their emails coming for stuff like this: As someone who used to be a B&O tech, you must've come across this;  ...rather than an actual 9000 as those things are loving quality bits of kit, acres of CNC machined aluminium, a large chunk of glass and a mechanism that's super smooth. Also it has a digital out so y'know, it's as audiophile as you could want. It's a sculpture that also plays music. You seem overly angry about a perfectly decent and attractive CD playing device from a somewhat noted lifestyle audio brand that was designed some 19+ years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Sorry, but the mini/shelf systems (like the one I linked) always looked and felt rattly and chintzy. I'm sure not all of it is but the build quality was not even close to in-line with the price. e: oh my, I didn't know we had B&O defenders here. I figured anyone who actually knew audio took them for a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:If you want to spend a lot of money and get super accurate, just buy studio monitors You can do a lot better than that if you want to spend a lot of money on monitors! http://pmc-speakers.com/products/professional/active/qb1-xbd
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:Sorry, but the mini/shelf systems (like the one I linked) always looked and felt rattly and chintzy. I'm sure not all of it is but the build quality was not even close to in-line with the price. It's a 25lb slab of aluminium and glass, rattly and chintzy aren't words I'd ever use to describe it. Overpriced definitely but then you can buy CD players that are $30k+ and can only play single CDs so I dunno...
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Neurophonic posted:You can do a lot better than that if you want to spend a lot of money on monitors! Oh I know it, Dyn was just the first thing that came to mind  88h88 posted:It's a 25lb slab of aluminium and glass, rattly and chintzy aren't words I'd ever use to describe it. Overpriced definitely but then you can buy CD players that are $30k+ and can only play single CDs so I dunno... TBF I don't know that I ever encountered that model specifically, but let's just say I was thoroughly unimpressed by the ones that I did see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:e: oh my, I didn't know we had B&O defenders here. I figured anyone who actually knew audio took them for a joke. Not a defender as such, even though I used to work there. Rattly and chintzy are certainly not words I would put to any B&O product*. Overpriced and sometimes with very divisive designs, yes. But certainly not chintzy. For all of their faults, they know very well that if something looks like metal, it had better be metal, or you're just setting your customers up for disappointment when they actually use the product. And if you use plastic, make sure that it's thick and well-supported, rattles and squeaks are big no-nos. I don't know which B&O products (or maybe knockoffs) you've used, but they're certainly not the same products that I worked on and was surrounded by while I worked there. And you gotta respect a remote control that can be thrown hard enough to kill a man, and yet still work perfectly afterwards. * Although they have made a couple of stinkers over the years. Their MP3 players and their mobile phone were crap, but the materials used were still gorgeous and high quality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:And you gotta respect a remote control that can be thrown hard enough to kill a man, and yet still work perfectly afterwards. ...albeit with the inevitable smashed LCD. I replaced so many of those over the years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
88h88 posted:...albeit with the inevitable smashed LCD. I replaced so many of those over the years. I grew up with this beastly thing:  Completely unkillable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
But very handy as a self defense tool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
I saw a * review of a $1,000 B&O boom box in T3 or similar about 10 years ago. They called it out for being a piece of garbage that relied on the brand for sales. Gonna bet there was more to it behind the scenes, because it's unlike the tech press to be actually honest and objective.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I saw a * review of a $1,000 B&O boom box in T3 or similar about 10 years ago. They called it out for being a piece of garbage that relied on the brand for sales. Gonna bet there was more to it behind the scenes, because it's unlike the tech press to be actually honest and objective. They promised a free one for a good review and it never showed
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
I used to drool over that B&O glass front CD changer at SoundAdvice every time I went.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
B&O had their awful moment in the sun when their 100k DKK television turned out to have a very cheap samsung panel in it. We're talking a panel when put into a TV for normals having a price tag of around 2% of the B&O model.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
B&O polarizes people like no other audio brand. I've been around B&O gear since the 70s. Every decade they have one --maybe two-- standout pieces. In the 80s, the Beogram 1800 turntable was very much worth its price, as were the mid-range MMCx phono cartridges that went with it. The current H6 headphones, to me, are a fair deal at $399. It's a crowded market in that price range, lots of good cans with different sound signatures. I happen to like the B&O house sound, and for what I mostly listen to, the H6 delivers. So overall I'm a fan of the brand, realizing that in many cases one is paying for name recognition and industrial design, not so much for sound, but that also in a few shining instances, the sound matches the price. Boiled Water posted:B&O had their awful moment in the sun when their 100k DKK television turned out to have a very cheap samsung panel in it. We're talking a panel when put into a TV for normals having a price tag of around 2% of the B&O model. Ahahaha, yeah, I remember that. Indefensible, IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Tactical Lesbian posted:Hey can you guys recommend me an amp that will do well with ~250-300ohm cans? My current amp can get them loud, sure, and I'm not sure if it's just the nature of dynamic speakers or they're not being given enough current, but on faster/busier passages there's like.. bits of pause between sound where it seems like it can't keep up. Like ~microstuttering~ due to clipping. I would recommend the Magni 2 or Asgard. The Valhalla is not suitable for orthos. Lyr is kind of overkill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Boiled Water posted:B&O had their awful moment in the sun when their 100k DKK television turned out to have a very cheap samsung panel in it. We're talking a panel when put into a TV for normals having a price tag of around 2% of the B&O model. So that's like enough money to get 2 or 3 decent used cars, and they put a Wal-Mart special quality panel in it? Yikes!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 02:22
|
|